Reply
Sat 24 Nov, 2007 04:31 am
Kool-Aid didn't kill those people.
Transference and suggestibility killed those people.
In October of 1978, surrounded by hundreds of his followers, cult leader Jim Jones was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head; this event took place in Jonestown, Guyana, where the followers of Jones drank the Kool-Aid of group psychology, killing them self by drinking a soft drink laced with cyanide at the cult's sprawling compound.
The images of bodies found at the compound were seared into the consciousness of a generation. The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" came to describe any blind devotion to a cause or person. It was not the Kool-Aid that killed all of these people but it was a human propensity called transference.
Freud informs us the reason for this form of behavior is the tendency for humans to be suggestible and influenced by a psychic form of transference.
Psychology is a domain of knowledge that is complex and filled with concepts that are completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of our population. But Psychology provides us with an insight into why humans do what they do that no other domain of knowledge can provide.
Sapiens are at heart slavish. Therein lay the rub, as Shakespeare might say.
Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and just below God.
That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil. "Evil lies not in the hearts of men but in the social arrangements that men take for granted."
Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom. Sapiens need hope and belief in themselves; thus illusion is necessary if it is creative for life, but is evil if it promotes death.
A psychodynamic analysis of history displays saga of death, destruction, and coercion from the outside while inside we see self-delusion and self enslavement. We seek mystification. We seek transference; we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.
We seek the power to ward off big evil by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.
Freud was the first to focus upon the phenomenon of a patient's inclination to transfer the feelings s/he had toward her parents as a child to the physician. The patient distorts the perception of the physician; s/he enlarges the figure up far out of reason and becomes dependent upon him. In this transference of feeling, which the patient had for his parents, to the physician the grown person displays all the characteristics of the child at heart, a child who distorts reality in order to relieve his helplessness and fears.
Freud saw these transference phenomena as the form of human suggestibility that makes the control over another, as displayed by hypnosis, as being possible. Hypnosis seems mysterious and mystifying to us only because we hide our slavish need for authority from our self. We live the big lie, which lay within this need to submit our self slavishly to another, because we want to think of our self as self-determined and independent in judgment and choice.
The predisposition to hypnosis is identical to that which gives rise to transference and it is characteristic of all sapiens.]/b] We could not function as adults if we retained this submissive attitude to our parents, however, this attitude of submissiveness, as noted by Ferenczi, is "The need to be subject to someone remains; only the part of the father is transferred to teachers, superiors, impressive personalities; the submissive loyalty to rulers that is so widespread is also a transference of this sort."
Freud saw immediately that when caught up in groups wo/man became dependent children once again. They abandoned their individual egos for that of the leader; they identified with their leader and proceeded to function with him as their ideal. Freud identified man, not as a herd animal but as a horde (teeming crowd) animal that is led by a chief. Wo/man has an insatiable need for authority.
People have an insatiable need to be hypnotized by authority; they seek a magical protection as when they were infants protected by their mother.what is the difference between a philosophy and an ideology. I turned to Freud and his book "Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego" for my answer. I discovered that Freud had turned to the Frenchman Gustave Le Bon for an understanding of group behavior.
Gustave Le Bon was a French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. His work on crowd psychology became important in the first half of the twentieth century. Le Bon was one of the great popularizers of theories of the unconscious at a critical moment in the formation of new theories of sociology.
English translation Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, was explicitly based on a critique of Le Bon's work. The quotes and short phrases in this post are from this book.
One aspect of being in a group that is so appealing is that it frees you from the burden of having to make decisions or justify them.
You don't have to constrain yourself to figure what you should do in this particular situation. You can just get lost in the moment and do what everyone else is doing on the false presumption that others in the group have thought about what they're doing.
It's the same mentality that led to no one calling the cops when a women was murdered in front of two large apartment complexes in broad daylight. Because everyone watching figured that someone else might call the cops or might intervene.
it's interesting how often i find philosophical arguments that trade one good explanation for another, rather than recognize that there are multiple factors.
it was actually the poison in the kool-aid, but i think the kool-aid helped.
Ideology is something we humans need to comprehend better than we now do. Ideology is both salvation and death.
The nature of the assumptions represents the major difference between philosophy and ideology. Philosophy seeks to see the world without taking any assumptions whereas ideology seeks to make its particular assumptions to be universal.
Non-philosophical forms of inquiry are intellectual endeavors constituted by certain basic assumptions. A scientific form of inquiry assumes that the world is an ordered whole and that we can, through reason, acquire knowledge of this whole. The world of science is governed by laws that define causal effects that are measurable and perceivable by humans.
It is the case that humans reason from within container like boundaries, thus we are always within a container. However the trick is to enlarge our containers and thereby gain a more universal perspective. We must find a means to examine our assumptions. Each container is constructed with its own assumptions. That is why philosophy is so useful. It is a domain of knowledge with the largest container, or at least the Philosophy dept likes to think so.
Ideology takes its assumptions and considers them infallible and strives to convince the world that their assumptions are natural and universal. Take as example the assumptions of Americans about democracy and freedom or the Catholic Church about Jesus.